Statusbar information

Post by **admin** » 15 May 2007 12:15

Let me propose a little shortening in order to make better use of the available screen space:

section 1
  before: 2.504 items (9,45 GB free)
   after: 2.504 items (9 GB free)

section 2
  before: 2.504 items selected: 427,48 MB (448.250.328 bytes)
   after: 2.504 selected: 427 MB (448.250.328 bytes)

section 3
  before: drive C:  10.326,51 MB used, 9.676,27 MB free (48%)
   after: drive C:  10.327 MB used, 9.676 MB free (48%)

This will save quite some bytes and make the statusbar look mas tranquilo. What do you think?

jgpaiva · Post by **jgpaiva** » 15 May 2007 12:23

I agree with everything but the first section. 0.9 GB is quite a lot of space in my disk

Post by **admin** » 15 May 2007 12:52

jgpaiva wrote:I agree with everything but the first section. 0.9 GB is quite a lot of space in my disk

Hm, but (a) it's rounded up/down so the error will be at most 0.5 GB, (b) the information is repeated in section 3 in MB (= 1000 times more exact).

jgpaiva · Post by **jgpaiva** » 15 May 2007 12:58

admin wrote:
jgpaiva wrote:I agree with everything but the first section. 0.9 GB is quite a lot of space in my disk
Hm, but (a) it's rounded up/down so the error will be at most 0.5 GB, (b) the information is repeated in section 3 in MB (= 1000 times more exact).

Oh... I hadn't noticed it was repeated on the right! The problem is that i never use XY maximized, thus, that information gets cutted away... Maybe the length of the statusbar should be dependant on the size of the window and not on the size of the monitor?

Post by **admin** » 15 May 2007 13:04

jgpaiva wrote:
admin wrote:
jgpaiva wrote:I agree with everything but the first section. 0.9 GB is quite a lot of space in my disk
Hm, but (a) it's rounded up/down so the error will be at most 0.5 GB, (b) the information is repeated in section 3 in MB (= 1000 times more exact).
Oh... I hadn't noticed it was repeated on the right! The problem is that i never use XY maximized, thus, that information gets cutted away...

That's exactly the problem.

Actually I don't think the free GB in the first section are necessary at all! I remember it has been wished and I thought "okay, why not" but now think away with it! It's also a bit misleading since the items count refers to the current folder but the GB count to the current volume.

jgpaiva · Post by **jgpaiva** » 15 May 2007 13:23

Right, i agree that it should be removed. But could the other thing with the bar being cut off be solved?

Post by **admin** » 15 May 2007 13:46

jgpaiva wrote:Right, i agree that it should be removed. But could the other thing with the bar being cut off be solved?

Well, everything moves to the left now, so there should be less cutting at least. (Tip: the sections have tooltips which are never cut.)

Post by **j_c_hallgren** » 15 May 2007 16:23

I, for one, do use and depend on the current layout of section 1, showing the fractional part of total space, since when one has a file selected, section 3 doesn't show values but shows file name... so PLEASE don't shorten it, ok?:(

I also use the fractional part of section 2, BTW....
And hovering to see tooltip is not an acceptable solution based on how often I use that data...sorry!

jacky · Post by **jacky** » 15 May 2007 17:34

Section 1: I don't care, never used that part of the info, only number of items.
Sections 2 & 3: here I care, I do use them, and would not really like to see those changes.

What you could do instead if reduce the size of some sections, since yeah the section 3 gets cut off some times

For what I can see, on my setup, the statusbar is 942 pixels wide.
Section 1 is 235, 25%
Section 2 is 366, 39%
Section 3 is 337, 36%

Section 1 & 2 are too large, and 2 too small. S1 at 160 & S2 at 300 would be enough for me I think.

Let's try,
Section 1 at 18%
Section 2 at 32%
Section 3 at 50%
..wouldn't (something like) that stop the cutting & still keep all the info as they are?

Post by **admin** » 15 May 2007 21:35

jacky wrote:Section 1: I don't care, never used that part of the info, only number of items.
Sections 2 & 3: here I care, I do use them, and would not really like to see those changes.

What you could do instead if reduce the size of some sections, since yeah the section 3 gets cut off some times

For what I can see, on my setup, the statusbar is 942 pixels wide.
Section 1 is 235, 25%
Section 2 is 366, 39%
Section 3 is 337, 36%

Section 1 & 2 are too large, and 2 too small. S1 at 160 & S2 at 300 would be enough for me I think.
...

No, they are not too large. It depends on the size of the list and some other factors. I took care to make section 1 and 2 as small as possible (at least with my system font). Now, by dropping this fractional parts, I could make them smaller. Why do you need the fractional parts?? The exact bytes are there in parentheses...

Post by **admin** » 15 May 2007 21:37

j_c_hallgren wrote:I, for one, do use and depend on the current layout of section 1, showing the fractional part of total space, since when one has a file selected, section 3 doesn't show values but shows file name... so PLEASE don't shorten it, ok?:(

Hm. You need to see the total space of the current disk when a file is selected? Why?

j_c_hallgren wrote:I also use the fractional part of section 2, BTW....

Why?? The exact bytes are there in parentheses...

Post by **j_c_hallgren** » 15 May 2007 21:53

admin wrote:
j_c_hallgren wrote:I, for one, do use and depend on the current layout of section 1, showing the fractional part of total space, since when one has a file selected, section 3 doesn't show values but shows file name... so PLEASE don't shorten it, ok?:(
Hm. You need to see the total space of the current disk when a file is selected? Why?

Because a majority of the time, I normally have a file selected! And you don't want me to have to swap over to my WE session to see this value, right?

It's basically a way to constantly have a monitor of this value, without having to do something or go somewhere...

admin wrote:
j_c_hallgren wrote:I also use the fractional part of section 2, BTW....
Why?? The exact bytes are there in parentheses...

Yes, the exact value is there, I agree...but I have a much easier time to relate to, work with (and temporarily remember) a value in the x.xxMB or x.xxKB format!
If you wanted to select a set of files and not exceed, let's say, 4.75MB, wouldn't this be easier to determine with the current setup/format? Besides, WE gives me this value so XY should also!

Update:
FYI: Here's a screen print of how my current setup looks:

Section 1 could lose a few pixels and be ok...so could section 2...I'd devote that space to section 3 as jacky suggested.

jacky · Post by **jacky** » 15 May 2007 22:01

admin wrote:No, they are not too large. It depends on the size of the list and some other factors. I took care to make section 1 and 2 as small as possible (at least with my system font).

Well, we must have different setups then

, because I do have XY maximized (on my main monitor, which is 1440x900) and my statusbar in under the List only (High Tree). I do have a somewhat large Tree, maybe, but either way here's what I get:

To me it looks like the 2 firsts sections could be smaller, while the third one is too small!

admin wrote:Now, by dropping this fractional parts, I could make them smaller. Why do you need the fractional parts?? The exact bytes are there in parentheses...

2 things:
- why would it make them smaller? Looking at my statusbar, they could be smaller easilly without loosing anything!
- why, just because at times I like to know that my selection is 427.48 MB or not just 427 MB. Sure the exact bytes are there, but I can't read 448.250.328 bytes and think "oh yeah, so that's like 427.48 MB"

To me, both numbers are good but not used for the same thing. Either I want the exact size, to the byte, which is why I like those full numbers (and that's how my List is setup); but at other times I dont want the "full" size, and then - probably a mix of taste & habit - but 427.48 MB or 9.45 GB feels better/more accurate than just 427 MB or 9 GB. I never liked the "Rounded Up" way to go...

jacky · Post by **jacky** » 15 May 2007 22:10

Actually, you know what? It seems section 1 and 2 are the same whether or not I use High Tree. Well, with High Tree OFF the way it works now is fine for me, section 3 is quite large then so I don't care the empty space on the first 2 sections.

But, with High Tree ON (andI do have it on) then those 2 sections should be adjusted, cause then they become too big and make the last one too short, resulting in sometimes info being cut off.

Just tried this: started a new XY, not maximized but window width the same as my List usually is (when window is maximized)
Well then, with High Tree enabled, I don't even see the third panel!! And the 2 firsts have empty space, so... are you sure they couldn't be smaller??

Post by **admin** » 15 May 2007 22:27

jacky wrote:
admin wrote:No, they are not too large. It depends on the size of the list and some other factors. I took care to make section 1 and 2 as small as possible (at least with my system font).
Well, we must have different setups then , because I do have XY maximized (on my main monitor, which is 1440x900) and my statusbar in under the List only (High Tree).

Ah yes. It's because of:

v5.80.0033 - 25.04.07 13:50
+ Statusbar: sections now are wider on wider monitors.

Some user with a big monitor (damn, I can't find the communication now) found section 1 or 2 too small, so I thought let's adjust to the biggie. I'll put a limit to it.